I have sifted through all the Democratic talking points, and here are the two that are going to get the most play.

1.) As voiced by Jeralynn Merrit on MSNBC and as discussed here: “Just because ballots were cast it doesn’t mean it is going to lead to a democracy.”

Of course ballots don’t translate directly into a democracy. Saddam Hussein did get 99% of the ballots cast in the last election, and I would hardly argue that Iraq was a democracy. I would, however, stipulate that the franchise is a PRE-REQUISITE for democracy. I am curious- when Democrats make a cake, do they put the icing on first?

2.) “What about the WMD? We went in after the WMD.”

We went in for WMD as well as a number of other documented reasons that the left now pretend to forget. But this really isn’t an issue, because what is an issue is the inconsistency even in the “What about the WMD” argument. Am I to assume that our deep thinkers on the left were in favor of going into get the WMD, seizing/destroying them, and then leaving a broken shell of Iraq? Of course not- so even though there were no WMD, we still need to fix Iraq.

Whyat is most annoying about this line of argument is that many on the left were right, and Bush was wrong- we would have to engage in nation-building. But now that Bush and the right have embraced nation building, the left cedes their moral authority and begins screaming to “Bring Home The Troops!” Go figure.

Watch for these- Jeralynn is dialed in, she knows the talking points. The talking heads and the Democrats will try to advance these specious arguments in the next couple of days- if you let them.

I would, however, stipulate that the franchise is a PRE-REQUISITE for democracy.

The counter is that to say there’s a democracy is to count one’s chickens before they’ve hatched; I could be wrong, but this group of reps isn’t an elected government yet. They’ll draft a constitution, which may or may not be a democracy. That seems like a weak counter to me, to be honest; Meralyn probably should’ve argued that this election isn’t a guarantor of western-style liberal democracy, with minority rights, due process, etal. I haven’t looked at the transcript, but it’s even possible that this is what she meant: “democracy” is often used as shorthand for liberal democracy.

We went in for WMD as well as a number of other documented reasons that the left now pretend to forget.

But for the WMD threat, do you really think we would have invaded? I sure don’t.

Before the US invaded Iraq the people had water and electricity. Okay, they also had a brutal dictator, and never mind that for a majority of his time in control he was America’s ally, he was still a brutal dictator.

Since America has invaded the entire infrastructure has collapsed, partly because it was blown up by our military, partly because we invaded with a force not sufficient to protect it from looting. Okay, they don’t have a brutal dictator, but that’s partly made up by our own torture program over there. The only people getting electricity and water on a regular basis are in Abu Ghraib.

There was an election. We know exactly what would happen if our troops left now. Chaos.

The problem is that there is little chance that if troops leave in six months or six years that there will be all that much difference in the outcome. The Kurds want their independence, which Turkey and Iran view as threatening because of their own Kurdish minorities. That would destabilize the area and probably provoke an invasion and occupation and another widespread uprising of the Kurds in Turkey. The oilfields in the north will flow to Turkey when they are not on fire.

The Sunni, the hated minority who’d received favorable treatment under Saddam, are sure to have less say in a true democracy, as it should be, but if the current Iraqi state unravels expect the Sunni Triangle to find allies to the west in Syria. They will be a rich area for terrorist recruitment for years to come.

The rump state in the Shia south will naturally become a satellite to Iran.

So thanks for tipping us off to the next excuse for our occupation of Iraq after bringing democracy: nation-building. No WMDs. The bad man Saddam is captured. We brought democracy to Iraq. Now we are there to build a nation that is on the verge of collapsing and splintering because we invaded it. Truly a job well-done!

We destroyed Iraq in order to what? Why, to build Iraq!

That’s the kind of logic you used to get from mobbed up construction companies. Buildings would be built and knocked down and rebuilt. Could Bernie Kerik be back?

But for the WMD threat, do you really think we would have invaded? I sure don’t.

Maybe, maybe not. But let’s not forget that the invasion was result of a global intelligence failure. We acted on bad intelligences that we didn’t find out that it was bad until after the invasion. What are we to do, say “oops” and then leave while the region is in a state of anarchy?

But the “Bush Lied” crowed has a hard time explaining why the CIA said that Iraqi had WMD or at least maintained it WMD programs long before Bush was began running for the 2000 Presidential campaign. And the CIA wasn’t alone; the rest of the world’s intelligence was saying the exact same thing. Many of those intelligence agencies were even from countries that were opposed to the invasion. If “Bush lied”, then that is one damn intricate worldwide conspiracy that backed up his “lie”.

Bob, outside of Baghdad and the other scattered areas Saddam favored the country’s infrastructure was in tatters. This was a deliberate decision by Saddam, who cared nothing for his people except as props, and UN, which was perfectly willing to pretend everything was roses so long as they got their cut. It had nothing to do with the United States.

I’m not even going to bother anwering most of your points. John and others have done so many times before and you’re obviously not paying attention. Maybe someday you’ll realize that endlessly inventing new worst-case scenarios isn’t a substitute for actually noting real-world events. But when Oliver agrees with you you’ve clearly got a long way to go.

Hey Robin Roberts, saying that Iraqis had water and electricity pre-invasion is not an exaggeration of their infrastructure. The country and the people were hurting from the sanctions, and as is typical of most organized states, too much wealth was flowing to the top and not enough to the rest. But there was food, water, electricity, treatment of sewage, etc. There were a lot of college graduates, doctors, engineers, etc., and if things had been done differently, Iraq would have had a chance to have grown from a dictatorship to a full-fledged West-leaning democracy. I admit that I have no alternative scenario to changing Iraq, but no immediate change was needed, was it?

Bryan C, we bombed the hell out of Iraq in 1991 and we put on sanctions that further eroded the quality of life there. So now there is infrequent water and electricity in even Baghdad. Your point?

Sure, Saddam didn’t care about his people, unlike George Bush, who loves us all.

But considering that healthy majorities of all three major ethnic groups want us out suggest that things are worse all over Iraq, voting for nameless candidates under the watchful eyes on an occupying army aside.

I think it was the confluence (word?) of WMD, terror, and the need to reform the region that got us into Iraq. And, of course, if Saddam had been a peace loving small time tin pot instead of a serial invader, he’d still be in power.

The WMD angle was hyped mainly because it’s the best LEGAL reason to invade and the one the UN might have bought.

Of course in the beginning, everyone knew the burden of proof was on Saddam, but then the media couldn’t resist the “smoking gun” and “criminal trial” memes. There was no burden of proof, there was no need for a smoking gun. But a lot of people think there need to be.

Bob, we all know that you are one sick puppy, and you should be at home with your lover who can take care of you. Please go home and stop posting this drivel that you extract from the DU and The Nation talking points.

Anyone that delusional would only be shaken out of his madness by having a hand lopped off, or maybe an electric drill run through his shinbone, or maybe watching his five month pregnant wife brutally gang raped and when she fails to miscarry, watching the thugs cut the fetus out with a knife. Maybe then he could see the distinction. But Bob will bitch and whine and vomit forth his Marxist talking points in complete comfort and safety under the evil Bu$hitler regime.

Would that he could be banished to actually live in his workers paradise and taste the fruits of his colossal, arrogant stupidity.

Wait, did you just say “We went in for WMD as well as a number of other documented reasons that the left now pretend to forget”? Sorry, my friend, the left remembers very well that WMD were only one of the shifting explanations that the administration provided for the war. In fact, it was precisely this casting about for a justification that most made me oppose the war.

If Bush had honestly said that Iraq had nothing direct to do with terrorism, but that he intended to force democracy on the country in an effort to remake the region, I’d have had to seriously consider the idea on its merits. But with Bush telling us he HAD to invade in order to rid Iraq of WMDs, even though he’d already managed to get inspectors back in the country, doing their jobs — and with Bush et al constantly implying that Hussein and bin Laden were conspiring and that Hussein had something to do with 9’11, claims that were not only untrue but that simply defied credulity — well, I got the strong impression that perhaps our president was a liar.

It’s intolerable for a president to lie to the American people. Especially if he’s lying about oral sex. But I’d even say that it’s wrong for the president to lie about decisions that result in the deaths of thousands of people. Maybe that’s just my moral values run amok.

I think it’s great that so many of the anti-Bush, anti-war crowd are bemoaning the fact that millions cast votes in Iraq yesterday, BEFORE we get a concensus of opinion from that group referred to as the “Arab Street.” It’s my belief that the satellite TV coverage in the region has caused some rumblings in neighboring countries that their dictatorial leaders will regret later.

A couple of points of interest I overheard on TV yesterday:
1.) Germany didn’t vote on a democracy until four years had passed following the end of WWII, Japan took seven years.
2.) Besides allowing Iraq’s infrastructure to decay, Saddam had not “surveyed” his country for potential oil well exploration for the past two decades, exploration that would drive up their potential production capacity by a factor of five over it’s previous high… making Saudi Arabia’s current production look puny.

Try to imagine that kind of value in the hands of Saddam, al Quaida, or Wahhabists, etc. down the road. It may have been about oil in part: in an attempt to keep it and it’s potential wealth (and power) out of the wrong hands.

Capt Joe, pointing out that the infrastructure in Iraq has eroded since the invasion is not being an apologist for Saddam. I know this is a hard concept for you, but when you invade a country and blow up things and dismiss most of the civil service and let looters haul off what’s left, that is not being an apologist for Saddam. Criticizing how badly the war was run, criticizing the reasoning for the war, that’s not apologizing for Saddam.

You want a list of apologists for Saddam? Start with Rumsfeld, George H. W. Bush, Reagan et al who illegally financed him during the Iran-Iraq War WHILE HE WAS USING POISON GAS AGAINST BOTH THE IRANIANS AND THE KURDS.

Come on, Bob, get REAL. With every new post you illustrate anew that you are having an increasingly difficult time distinguishing between fact and paranoid fantasy. Stop tuning into all the lunatics on the Left, stop reading DU, atriois, Oliver Witless, etc., and seek employment or agree to voluntary institutionalization. You owe it to your family (assuming you have one), your country (whether it’s North Korea, Syria or whatever)and your own mental health.

As with all rationalists, to the left all politics are personal; their worldview being the only “rational” one, their egos, wholly invested in their worldview, simply cannot endure not being borne out by events or otherwise being proven wrong. To their minds, being proven wrong means being demonstrated to be irrational.

Furthermore, they will do anything to avoid this fate, even if it means finding common cause with naked. vicious barbarism.

What the unredeemed leftist mind is still missing from its worldview is the knowledge that what the world is and what they think the world is are two different things, with one being the world and the other being merely thoughts bopping around the insides of their skulls.Thus their logic is incapable of bringing them to the truth that they, and indeed any of us, could just as easily be completely factually incorrect about anything as not, which in turn implies that just because we may be wrong about something doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with us.